An apology and a request to CRS

Yesterday, I revisited the questions regarding CRS funding of CARE.  I admitted my intellectual inefficiencies in understanding how the aforementioned funding could not be fungible in some way and asked "If you are smart enough to convince me that there's no way receiving funds from CRS helped CARE in other areas, please take a shot."

Jim Stipe of CRS did "take that shot".  First, I want to thank Jim for not only responding, but for doing so in a charitable manner.  I still had to read his comments several times along with all of the other material I had already read and re-read and re-read ... again.  Told you I might be kind of dumb sometimes.

Next, I do want to address something Jim says in his comments:

"On a personal note, I wouldn't want to work for an organization who had an opportunity to save people’s lives and do no other harm but decided not to simply because they were worried that some people might misunderstand and object."

I admire Jim for his conviction.  While I cannot speak for the motivations of others, I do want to clarify that the prime mover for my reaction(s) was not just the possible misunderstanding of people.  A good priest told me "the heart of true Christian ministry must always be the salvation of souls".  (I do believe that the work of CRS fulfills this obligation.)  I will resist the urge to carry on about spiritual and material needs and their shared connection.  Lucky you.

I admit my own concern that the faithful are tired of feeling "duped" whether warranted or not.  I admit my concern with the "appearance" of an opportunity for the Obama Administration to conclude that the Catholic Bishops are not serious about their opposition to the HHS mandate and its implications with regards to religious freedom.

One must also take into consideration though that we live in a "headline" world where many form opinions quickly and most are too stubborn to change their minds.  Yes, mia culpa many times over.  "The faithful", while collective are also individuals.  Each is at a particular point in his or her spiritual life.  Some are more susceptible to being scandalized than others.  I remain most concerned about the appearance of the donation to CARE for those who may be easily misled (yes, scandalized) and for those who will refrain from charitable giving in the future.

Now, for that moment my wife has been waiting for:

I admit that I was wrong.  Furthermore, I apologize to CRS and to the USCCB for the tone of my original response to this particular issue.  I also want to point out that it is commendable of CRS to use a third party to perform ethical reviews of its activities.

I do urge CRS to consider more carefully the effects that such "appearances" might have and to possibly be a little more proactive in addressing possible concerns of the faithful in the future.

I'll conclude by joining Brandon Vogt in his resolve:

"Despite their imprudence, though, I still support CRS and their otherwise life-changing work. I’ll continue donating every month, our kids will fill up their Rice Bowls with coins next Lent, and I’ll support their projects near and far. I hope you will to. Few charities do better work in the name of Christ and his Church. And almost none do it as efficiently or faithfully as CRS. So together let’s help steer this ship forward in the right direction. And let’s do all we can to strengthen its Catholic identity, not rip the name-tag off its chest."

Maybe I was hard on CRS and the USCCB, but I am not smart enough to say I was wrong yet

On Tuesday I posted regarding funds donated by CRS to CARE.  I based the post on an article by Michelle Bauman of Catholic News Agency.

Yesterday, I noticed on Twitter that @CRSnews was making an effort to respond to the criticism, continuing to defend its contribution to CARE.  Engaging in the "tweeting", I was told by @CRSnews to read a statement by John Haas (stressing "in his own words") of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBS), which did an ethical analyses of the grant for CRS.  Although helpful, I did not (and still do not) believe that the statement was a ringing endorsement of the transaction(s) in question.

In fact, in John Haas' "own words";

The NCBC concluded that great care was taken by CRS to see that funds were used only for the purposes designated, i.e., assisting the poor, the malnourished, and the starving.  

However, there is another dimension to the Principle of Material Cooperation: the consideration of the risk of scandal. Even if cooperation with an evildoer to achieve some great good were morally legitimate it still could not be done if the action of the Catholic would lead others to believe that the Catholic Church were indifferent to the evil, such as, for example, contraception.

He goes on to say that some clarifications were made to the CRS Mission Statement and concluded with "CRS obviously assumes the responsibility for the grants which it awards."

Later, I was directed by someone (whose opinion on such matters I respect) to review an article by Brandon Vogt (no known relation).

While I had already seen the documentation which Brandon presented in the article, he certainly offered a thorough review of such.

I strongly encourage you to read his article and the comments and follow-ups as well.

However, I am personally still having a hard time buying the whole fungibility argument. Maybe CARE can't transfer funding directly, but the analogy given (in Brandon's article)of the $10 to the street guy who uses the money for alcohol instead of food does not seem fit (in my opinion).

A more accurate analogy would seem to be someone (CARE) who receives $10 in food stamps. They use the $10 food stamps for food. However, now they have this $10 that someone else gave them. They were trying to decide if they would use the $10 (or some of it) on food and the rest on alcohol. Now they don't have to make the choice. They can have both.

Maybe I'm too dumb for my own good, but it sure does not smell good when the bishops are fighting Obama on a comparable subject.

If you are smart enough to convince me that there's no way receiving funds from CRS helped CARE in other areas, please take a shot.  Really.  I would love to make my wife happy and admit publicly that I was wrong.